Failing to Change Attitudes

1
Failing to Change Attitudes

• Ryan Duffy and Karen Baetz

2
Conway Schaller (2005)

• When Authorities Commands Backfire
  Attributions About Consensus and Effects on
  Deviant Decision Making
• Consensus heuristic
• Attribution theory
• Reactance theory

3
Central Hypothesis!

• When an individual within a group observes a
  consensus, an authoritys command can lead to a
  decrease in ones willingness to follow the
  explicit behavior

4
Study 1

• Hypothesis backfiring is moderated by the
  authority figures continued presence
• Results, for both a new and old boss
• When an authority did not give a command to the
  participants, then participants inferred that
  consensus reflected inherent qualities of the
  object of consensus
• However, a command by authority led participants
  to attribute the consensus to the power of social
  influence
• Endorsement of command was higher for old boss
  continued presence led to higher endorsement

5

• Table 1
• Interactive Effects of Authorities Command and
  Continued
• Presence of Authority on Attributions and
  Endorsement of the
• Object of Consensus in Study 1
• Same boss New boss
• No No
• Measure command Command command Command
• Attribution 0.51 -0.61 0.71 -0.64
• Endorsement 4.75 4.55 5.80 2.15

6
Study 2

• Hypothesis backfiring is dependent upon
  expertise of the authority
• Backfiring was reduced when authority was an
  expert
• Participants attribute consensus, when receiving
  a command, to social influence
• Endorsement was much less for the non-expert,
  though it was still lower for the expert
• Thus, the variables in studies 1 and 2 (continued
  authority and expertise) directly affect
  compliance or individual perceptions without
  impacting attribution

7

• Table 2
• Interactive Effects of Authorities Command and
  Expertise on
• Attributions and Endorsement of the Object of
  Consensus in
• Study 2
• Expert Nonexpert
• No No
• Measure command Command command Command
• Attribution 0.70 -0.53 0.52 -0.69
• Endorsement 5.04 3.52 5.35 0.83

8
Study 3

• This study is more about reactance than
  attribution
• Hypothesis backfiring is moderated by the nature
  of the audience to whom the command is
  communicated (individual vs. group target of
  command)
• Results only in the command/group target
  condition was consensus attributed to social
  influence
• For the individual command condition, there was
  no attribution because there was no backfiring
  they could not attribute social influence because
  theyre alone
• Individuals endorsed commands on a much higher
  scale
• Reactance was not found to mediate such
  relationships

9

• Table 3
• Interactive Effects of Authorities Command and
  Target of
• Command on Attributions, Reactance, and
  Endorsement of the
• Object of Consensus in Study 3
• Individual target Group target
• No No
• Measure command Command command Command
• Attribution 0.31 0.17 0.65 -1.00
• Reactance 3.93 6.30 3.30 6.50
• Endorsement 3.11 6.05 3.64 1.85

10
Study 4

• Hypothesis backfiring depends on the interaction
  of the leadership style (authoritarian vs.
  open-minded) and how the command is presented
  (hard vs. soft)
• Backfiring should be reduced when an open-minded
  authority gives commands
• Results it does not matter how gentle or kind
  the command or the commander is as long as they
  believe consensus comes from the power of social
  influence
• Reactance was not found to be a factor, in that
  the soft command from the open leader had less
  reactance compared to hard commands from both
  types of leaders, as well as a soft command from
  an authoritarian leader less reactance for this
  special condition

11

• Table 4
• Effects of Authorities Command and Leader Style
  on Attributions, Reactance, and Endorsement
• of the Object of Consensus in Study 4
• Authoritarian leader Open leader
• Measure No Soft Hard No Soft Hard
• comm comm comm comm comm comm
• Attribution 0.76 -0.40 -0.51 0.86 -0.22
  -0.45
• Reactance 4.04 6.09 6.73 3.11 4.11 7.00
• Endorsement 4.00 2.07 1.69 7.33 1.33 3.07

12
Study 5

• Hypothesis backfiring is affected by the amount
  of cognitive resources available to the person
  (cognitive loads affect backfiring)
• Results when participants were deprived of their
  resources, the backfiring effect of the authority
  virtually disappeared
• Cognitively distracted people were less likely to
  take situational factors into account when making
  attributional judgments
• They recognize the factors in the situation such
  as social influence but werent able to use them
  in order to make a decision about the object of
  consensus

13

• Table 5
• Interactive Effects of Authorities Command and
  Cognitive Load
• on Attributions, Reactance, and Endorsement of
  the Object of
• Consensus in Study 5
• No load Load
• No No
• Measure command Command command Command
• Attribution 0.65 -0.65 0.60 -0.51
• Reactance 3.23 6.04 3.59 5.28
• Endorsement 5.64 1.92 4.59 4.40

14
Summary!

• When an authority figure commands people to
  behave in a consensual manner, the command itself
  will lead individuals to deviate from the
  consensus thus, the command backfires
• A reason for deviance is that the authoritys
  command changes observers attributions about why
  popular opinion exists in the first place
• Consensus loses power when obvious constraints
  (i.e., factors that create consensus) are made
  salient to us, such as a command from an authority